5 ms·

Well, historically women were discouraged from doing anything intellectual. I read a biography of Ada Lovelace and she regularly corresponded with a medical do

by araneae 16y ago

Well, historically women were discouraged from doing anything intellectual. I read a biography of Ada Lovelace and she regularly corresponded with a medical doctor who in his letters advised her to not to so much math. It was believed that thinking too much would weaken the body. Good thing she didn't listen! In adulthood, she also corresponded with her childhood math tutor. He wrote to her that his daughter was precocious at math, and he feared it would do her damage, so he actively discouraged his daughter... so much so that his wife complained to him that the daughter was now quite intellectually deficient. Ada Lovelace only got where she was because she was raised by her mother who hated her poet father Lord Byron with such intensity that she considered it the ultimate revenge to completely prevent Ada from reading any literature, and spend all her time doing math. But most girls, like her tutor's daughter, were subject to the opposite treatment. It's not surprising that most women didn't do very much math. >There is a reason 2 sexes exist... It is the behavioral and mental differences of the sexes that make the 2-sex species much stronger than otherwise. Wow, that is the most bullshit explanation for sexual reproduction I have ever seen. The actual reason for the existence of sexual reproduction is still very much under research, but one plausible explanation is that it increases genetic diversity a la http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queens_Hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queens_Hypothesis It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with making the species stronger. Natural selection does not work on a species level, only on the level of an individual organism or gene. If a species is not "strong" it goes extinct.

VladRussian 16y ago
>she considered it the ultimate revenge to completely prevent Ada from reading any literature, and spend all her time doing math. yep, her mother demonstrated a level of rationality no man can even dream to achieve. >Wow, that is the most bullshit explanation for sexual reproduction I have ever seen. you missed just a small detail - i didn't try to explain sexual reproduction. I was talking about existence of 2 sexes, which overlaps with sexual reproduction, yet is not the same thing. > It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with making the species stronger. Natural selection does not work on a species level, only on the level of an individual organism or gene. If a species is not "strong" it goes extinct. thank you. That clearly settles our discussion why women haven't been successful in areas where analysis of facts and synthesis of theories explaining the facts is the main mode of operation.
- araneae 16y ago
  >you missed just a small detail No, I did not. The existence of two sexes is only because of sexual reproduction. If organisms did not have sexual reproduction, and only reproduced asexually, there would not be two sexes. If something like two sexes arose in a species (i.e. one that is good at math and one that was good at cooking), it would speciate, because each "sex" would just keep changing individually; evolution is a chaotic process. Sexes only exist where there is sexual reproduction. The question of why two sexes exist is absolutely about why sexual reproduction exists; two sexes exist BECAUSE sexual reproduction exists, and sexual reproduction exists BECAUSE it confers some evolutionary advantage. In fact, your confusion about this connection actually illustrates why you argument is wrong. IF it were possible for a species to evolve to be "strong" AND division of skills produced produced "strength" THEN you would expect to see asexual species with "sexes." But you don't. >thank you. That clearly settles our discussion why women haven't been successful You made a completely fallacious argument as some sort of absurd appeal to the naturalistic as evidence of your claim. Showing that the claim is blatantly false repudiates that claim, so it's relevant to our discussion. I'm honestly flabbergasted that you would say something like "I'm right because it's natural" when you clearly have a extremely poor understanding of nature. >her mother demonstrated a level of rationality no man can even dream to achieve Apparently your version of rational discourse is to respond to a claim that repudiates your claim (women were, in fact, actively discouraged from doing math) by insulting women. I rest my case.
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >No, I did not. The existence of two sexes is only because of sexual reproduction. If organisms did not have sexual reproduction, and only reproduced asexually, there would not be two sexes. If something like two sexes arose in a species (i.e. one that is good at math and one that was good at cooking), it would speciate, because each "sex" would just keep changing individually; evolution is a chaotic process. Sexes only exist where there is sexual reproduction. The question of why two sexes exist is absolutely about why sexual reproduction exists; two sexes exist BECAUSE sexual reproduction exists, and sexual reproduction exists BECAUSE it confers some evolutionary advantage. your post again confirms my point. You're very good a "housekeeping" of facts, yet you miss the ability to analytically transcend beyond the mere set of facts. The sexual reproduction is the _mean_ of keeping 2 sexes from speciating, and not a _goal_ of the 2 sex existence. The 2 sex specialization inside 1 species is what confers primary evolutionary advantage. >IF it were possible for a species to evolve to be "strong" AND division of skills produced produced "strength" THEN you would expect to see asexual species with "sexes." But you don't. because without sexual reproduction the speciating happens. Sexual reproduction is a necessary mean for keeping of (and not a goal of development of) specialization without triggering speciating.

by araneae 16y ago

VladRussian 16y ago

>she considered it the ultimate revenge to completely prevent Ada from reading any literature, and spend all her time doing math. yep, her mother demonstrated a level of rationality no man can even dream to achieve. >Wow, that is the most bullshit explanation for sexual reproduction I have ever seen. you missed just a small detail - i didn't try to explain sexual reproduction. I was talking about existence of 2 sexes, which overlaps with sexual reproduction, yet is not the same thing. > It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with making the species stronger. Natural selection does not work on a species level, only on the level of an individual organism or gene. If a species is not "strong" it goes extinct. thank you. That clearly settles our discussion why women haven't been successful in areas where analysis of facts and synthesis of theories explaining the facts is the main mode of operation.

araneae 16y ago
>you missed just a small detail No, I did not. The existence of two sexes is only because of sexual reproduction. If organisms did not have sexual reproduction, and only reproduced asexually, there would not be two sexes. If something like two sexes arose in a species (i.e. one that is good at math and one that was good at cooking), it would speciate, because each "sex" would just keep changing individually; evolution is a chaotic process. Sexes only exist where there is sexual reproduction. The question of why two sexes exist is absolutely about why sexual reproduction exists; two sexes exist BECAUSE sexual reproduction exists, and sexual reproduction exists BECAUSE it confers some evolutionary advantage. In fact, your confusion about this connection actually illustrates why you argument is wrong. IF it were possible for a species to evolve to be "strong" AND division of skills produced produced "strength" THEN you would expect to see asexual species with "sexes." But you don't. >thank you. That clearly settles our discussion why women haven't been successful You made a completely fallacious argument as some sort of absurd appeal to the naturalistic as evidence of your claim. Showing that the claim is blatantly false repudiates that claim, so it's relevant to our discussion. I'm honestly flabbergasted that you would say something like "I'm right because it's natural" when you clearly have a extremely poor understanding of nature. >her mother demonstrated a level of rationality no man can even dream to achieve Apparently your version of rational discourse is to respond to a claim that repudiates your claim (women were, in fact, actively discouraged from doing math) by insulting women. I rest my case.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >No, I did not. The existence of two sexes is only because of sexual reproduction. If organisms did not have sexual reproduction, and only reproduced asexually, there would not be two sexes. If something like two sexes arose in a species (i.e. one that is good at math and one that was good at cooking), it would speciate, because each "sex" would just keep changing individually; evolution is a chaotic process. Sexes only exist where there is sexual reproduction. The question of why two sexes exist is absolutely about why sexual reproduction exists; two sexes exist BECAUSE sexual reproduction exists, and sexual reproduction exists BECAUSE it confers some evolutionary advantage. your post again confirms my point. You're very good a "housekeeping" of facts, yet you miss the ability to analytically transcend beyond the mere set of facts. The sexual reproduction is the _mean_ of keeping 2 sexes from speciating, and not a _goal_ of the 2 sex existence. The 2 sex specialization inside 1 species is what confers primary evolutionary advantage. >IF it were possible for a species to evolve to be "strong" AND division of skills produced produced "strength" THEN you would expect to see asexual species with "sexes." But you don't. because without sexual reproduction the speciating happens. Sexual reproduction is a necessary mean for keeping of (and not a goal of development of) specialization without triggering speciating.